WTC-7 Mysteries FINALLY Solved.

a reply to: Salander
Why!! His so-called evidence was debunked years ago by experts and was the disinformation that I have been warning people about.

First of all, architects, structural and civil engineers, firefighters,demolition experts, investigators and clean-up crews found no evidence of explosives.

Now, he can take his so-called evidence to the NYPD and or ANY demolition company to see if they will take his so-called evidence seriously enough. Protec Documentation Sevices, Inc., a company of demolition experts and engineers, were operating seismic monitors when the WTC buildings collapsed and the company stated for the record that their seismic monitors did not record demolition explosions as the WTC buildings collapsed.

After 14 years, no one found a single shred of evidence of explosives, which explains why explosions are not seen on video nor heard on audio and why seismic monitors did not detect demolition explosions as the WTC buildings collapsed.

To sum it up, experts provided evidence that fire, in conjunction with impact damage, not explosives, was responsible for the destruction of the WTC buildings.

originally posted by: LaBTop

They "discovered" with their expensive software, also at last, teeth-grindingly, a period of 2.25 seconds, of even closer to precise free fall acceleration, than David Chandler came up with,

At 1:32 in this video that "can not be debunked" they do several comparisons between WTC 7 and known demolitions.




They seem to be having a little trouble getting the scale of the two buildings accurate.




Wouldn't the bottom frame of the above photo be a more accurately scaled comparison than the top frame.


So is this miscalculation in scale is:
A. gross stupidity on the part of A&E 911T
B. Truther Bait


Are they really that stupid or are they misleading the Truthers down to the river of stupidity to have a drink.


If you pointed out this error in the video that "can not be debunked" to David Chandler. Do you think he would grind his teeth and correct it (like NIST did with the acceleration) or do you think he would just ignore you.

Why don't we contact and find out?

I already know the answer.

a reply to: LaBTop

Those were no demoliton explosions. Ever heard the explosive sounds of structural failures?

Here is an example. What do you hear at time line 0:42 and time line 0:45?



Now, once again, please point out the time lines where explosions are heard in this video.

a reply to: Salander

Evidence arrived at by the MSU school of thinking is not actual evidence. It just isn't...

a reply to: waypastvne

In one video, I noticed that truthers like to use him as a reference for WTC 7, but it seems that they ignore his record when he said that no explosives were used to bring down WTC 1 and WTC 2.

It is those kind of missteps that make the Truth Movement look silly.

a reply to: LaBTop

While real free fall calculations try to find periods in which the 9.8 meters PER second PER second ACCELERATION rate for G is reached, to prove if there are short or long periods of real free fall acceleration in any collapse SEQUENCE.

It doesn't take a rocket science to figure out from these two photos that at no time did the WTC buildings collapse at free fall speed, especially since dust plumes and debris, which are falling at free fall speed, are seen outpacing the collapse and striking the ground while the collapse of the building is still in progress many stories above.

Common sense logic, you understand, in these photos.

Proof: No Free Fall Speed 1

Proof: No Free Fall Speed 2

With video and photo evidence that debunk free fall claims, why are truthers still arguing the WTC buildings fell at free fall speed when undeniable evidence depicted no such thing?

a reply to: skyeagle409

You are talking about Danny Jowenko. Yes it does seem odd that they would leave out the part where Danny said WTC 1&2 looked like natural a collapse to him.

a reply to: waypastvne

You are correct, it was Danny Jowenko. Thanks for catching that.

a reply to: LaBTop

You now dare to post again 9:59 minutes of this kind of childish "debunking" rubbish, while you have been offered multiple times in this thread alone already, the reason why David Chandler is right, and why it is accepted by every scientist on the globe already for all these years since 2008, except by real nut-jobs like this guy.

Where did you get the false idea that it is accepted by every scientist on the globe? That is false! Let's look at some real numbers.

* 123,000 members of ASCE(American Society of Civil Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report.

* 80,000 members of AIA(American Institute of Architects) who do not question the NIST Report.

* 120,000 members of ASME(American Society of Mechanical Engineers) who do not question the NIST report.

* 370,000 members of IEEE(Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) who do not question the NIST report.

* 40,000 members of AIChE(American Institute of Chemical Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report.

* 35,000 members of AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) who do not question the NIST report.

Now, let's hear it for one of the world's top demolition expert.

Brent Blanchard: Demolition Expert

Brent Blanchard: If I wanted to have the least amount of detection and of physical evidence I would have used a radio wireless frequency detonator, but there's still no way to wire all those columns together without using any wire. Even with a wireless detonator you would still have to tie these columns together. And the biggest point is still that you need access to those columns. There are only two ways you can blast such a thick steel H-beam. One is to bulk load it, which means you take a big load of explosives and you just duct tape it or attach it to the beams and you just let it rip and obliterate the beam. The second way, which is what happens with true controlled demolitions, is that you cut through the flanges and you attached the charges to a point where the flanges are pre-cut and then you finish the job with the explosives.

Those are really the only two ways to cause a beam of that size to fail. Now you have to magnify that times dozens, if not hundreds, of beams. Because if you shoot ten of those nothing is going to happen, the building won't fail. You have to shoot many more than that, because the weight is distributed around that structure at the core and around the perimeter. Both methods would be extremely noticeable to the naked eye.

Furthermore, if you were going to bulk load the columns, you would have not only seen the fireball where the plane hit but also huge fireballs everywhere these explosives detonate, and nothing of the sort was seen.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Brent Blanchard: No. And there is no evidence there was molten steel. The way they phrase that question is fundamentally wrong and that's why it reaches wrong conclusions every time. There were molten materials, there were very hot burning materials, but there's no evidence that any of those materials were steel. It is much more likely that they were aluminum, or copper, or composite materials.

undicisettembre.blogspot.it...

Now, the clincher.

Brent Blanchard: No. There's no evidence. We see the same material being presented year after year, over and over. We are not judge and jury but we do work in the industry and we see it all the time. We do see telltale signs of what to look for, we did work on the cleanup, I was personally on the 9/11 site later in the fall because we were documenting the clean-up effort by multiple demolition crews. My engineering company is not tied to any political organization, we are not even tied to those demolition teams. We are just a contractor, and that was one of our jobs.

We have a trained eye and none of us saw any indication of wiring, or cuts, or pre burning or any of the things we see hundreds of times a year on explosive demolition sites. Given the amount of time we worked there, if we had seen some of it we would have taken note of it. We would have seen if something didn't look right. Not only my team, but all demolition teams….not a single man saw anything that looked suspicious or that looked like it needed further investigation related to explosive demolition.

This all came from conspiracy theorists who are not expert in controlled demolitions at all.

In other words, the vast majority of structural experts, demolition experts, and architects do not support the Truth Movement.

Since you missed this before, check it out.

Architects Shy From Trutherism

www.architectmagazine.com...

a reply to: Salander

With all due respect sir, you seem to IGNORE the evidence that LabB has presented. You claim there is no evidence when in fact it is abundant.

It has been 14 years and yet, not one single breaking news report of demolition explosive evidence from major news agencies after all of those years.

Demolition experts were also aware that there were no demolition explosions as the WTC buildings collapsed.

Brent Blanchard: Demolition Expert

Brent Blanchard: One thing I would add is that there are vibration recordings from the site. The seismograph readings that were recorded on 9/11, as they are every day worldwide, recorded the impacts of the planes and the actual collapses of the structures. You can see in those waveforms and in that data that there was no sudden catalyst at 10:06 or any other time; there was no explosive event. So in order for an explosive detonation to be hidden, folks at those laboratories, actual scientists at Columbia University and other places, would also have needed to be part of the conspiracy.

In the end there is absolutely no scientific evidence that there were explosions in any of those three buildings, and that means a lot to me.

undicisettembre.blogspot.it...


Van Romero: Demolition Expert

"Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail," said Van Romero, a vice president at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology.

911research.wtc7.net...


The Structural Engineering Community Rejects the Controlled-Demolition Conspiracy Theory

The structural engineering community rejects the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Its consensus is that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings was a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives.


Civil & Structural Engineers on WTC Collapse

"The aircraft moved through the building as if it were a hot and fast lava flow," Sozen says. "Consequently, much of the fireproofing insulation was ripped off the structure. Even if all of the columns and girders had survived the impact - an unlikely event - the structure would fail as the result of a buckling of the columns.

The heat from an ordinary office fire would suffice to soften and weaken the unprotected steel. Evaluation of the effects of the fire on the core column structure, with the insulation removed by the impact, showed that collapse would follow whatever the number of columns cut at the time of the impact."

911-engineers.blogspot.com...


The World Trade Center's Steel Structure Was Buckling Before the Collapse

Police, Firemen and Civilians Saw Warning Signs of Collapse of the Twin Towers on September 11th 2001

www.representativepress.org...

There's only so much a person can take. I'm going to have to pick sides on this topic sooner or later, I think. And it feels much more like sooner. As much as I have avoided getting into the debate, sometimes things simply MUST be said.

a reply to: skyeagle409

As on the other thread, it appears you labor under the delusion that our mainstream media has integrity and practices honest truth-seeking journalism.

Our mainstream media is completely compromised and is really but a tool of the corporate controlled government. You are extremely gullible, perhaps to the point of cognitive dissonance.

The closer one examines the official story the more it fails.

a reply to: Salander

As on the other thread, it appears you labor under the delusion that our mainstream media has integrity and practices honest truth-seeking journalism.

Under no delusion at all. After all, truthers have slapped me on the head with hoaxed videos, photos and disinformation. Do I need to post examples that have the Truth Movement looking silly?

The closer one examines the official story the more it fails.

14 years and counting, real experts dismiss the Truth Movement.

Bird Screens







I found a photo of a large section of exterior walls, from the mechanical floors, in free fall. In the photo you can plainly see the bird screens that replaced the windows on the mechanical floors, allowing HVAC equipment to ventilate. This proves beyond a doubt that the bird screens existed and what we see in the above video is a bird screen being blown out of the window frame. The most likely force that blows it out of the frame is still freon being dumped out of the heat exchanger located just in side the screen.

a reply to: skyeagle409

A person struggling under certain delusions does not realize he is under delusions. That's rather the point. You actually believe what the mainstream media has to say, without any questions asked. I am quite the opposite.

The mainstream media is utterly corrupt and without conscience. It does not know right from wrong, and is far more interested in advancing an agenda, something other than the truth.

a reply to: Salander

A person struggling under certain delusions does not realize he is under delusions. That's rather the point. You actually believe what the mainstream media has to say, without any questions asked. I am quite the opposite.

What ever gave you the idea that I depend on the media, which in fact, I have the experience as a pilot and airframe structural technician to know when to hold 'em, and when to throw 'em? That is another reason why I have confronted the founder of "Pilots for 9/11 Truth" when I caught him and his group posting disinformation and in some cases, outright lies.

I have consistently corrected truthers whenever I caught them posting false and misleading information simply because they were posting things that didn't reflect reality in the real world of aviation.

I was on duty at Travis AFB during the 9/11 attack and my Wing Commander was inside the Pentagon when it was struck by American 77, so it is amazing to me that there are those who actually believe that a missile struck the Pentagon. Never mind that I have identified wreckage inside and outside the Pentagon as wreckage from a B-757 in the colors of American Airlines.

The mainstream media is utterly corrupt and without conscience. It does not know right from wrong, and is far more interested in advancing an agenda, something other than the truth.

Truth?! What do truthers know about the truth? In two weeks, truthers hit me with a hoaxed video of WTC 7, the same hoaxed video that I posted a reference to in order to prove my case that truthers were posting hoaxed videos and photos. Simply amazing that truthers posted that hoaxed video after I posted a reference to that same video in order to prove my case!!

With that in mind, it is no secret why the Truth Movement is not taken seriously, except by those who allow themselves to be duped on a regular basis. After all, much of what truthers have been posting was planted disinformation, hoaxed videos and photos in order to discredit the Truth Movement, and it worked because truthers were too blind to see that what they were reposting was planted in order to discredit them.

In other words, truthers were handed ropes, which they used to hang themselves with.

originally posted by: drommelsboef
This is also worth a read

www.isgp.nl...

THANK YOU !
That site is equally HIGHLY interesting as Major_Tom's site.
I read a few pages there now, and it's refreshing, I haven't found any of the usual rehashed basic faults as reported by most older websites. Everything is up to date and I found already multiple entries I never heard about or never read about.
There are about 50 subjects, so I'm a bit busy right now.
Please hold the line for me, I'll be popping in in between reading, to see how many repetitive posts then have been spawned.

Footage that kills the conspiracy theories: Unseen 9/11 footage shows WTC Building 7 consumed by fire

Its dramatic collapse several hours after the Twin Towers fell triggered a decade of conspiracy theories. Those who believed that the September 11 attacks on America were not carried out by Al Qaeda terrorists pointed to the fall of World Trade Center Building 7 as proof of their wild claims.

But a newly released video appears to finally prove once and for all that Building 7 was brought down by the intense heat of the blazing World Trade Center - and not explosives, as conspiracy theorists claim.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

a reply to: skyeagle409

Honestly? A video of flames in one corner of one floor proves that fire brought the building down? The video does not show a building "engulfed" in flames as so eloquently put by the Daily Mail, it shows what everyone already knew...random fires on a couple of floors.

a reply to: Flatcoat

Honestly? A video of flames in one corner of one floor proves that fire brought the building down? The video does not show a building "engulfed" in flames as so eloquently put by the Daily Mail, it shows what everyone already knew...random fires on a couple of floors.

It is no secret that WTC 7 was engulfed in flames, which was evident in this photo, which depicts the whole south facade of WTC 7 engulfed in smoke.

WTC 7 Photo

Firefighter on WTC 7

"Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 [o'clock], that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, [we've] got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there. (Q. Initially when you were there, you had said you heard a few Maydays?)

Oh, yes. We had Maydays like crazy.... The heat must have been tremendous. There was so much [expletive] fire there. This whole pile was burning like crazy. Just the heat and the smoke from all the other buildings on fire, you [couldn't] see anything. So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and [that's] when 7 collapsed.... Basically, we fell back for 7 to collapse, and then we waited a while and it got a lot more organized, I would guess."

- Lieutenant William Ryan